PURPOSE: To determine the role of magnetic resonance (MR) mammography in detection and assessment of extent of tumors with extensive intraductal component (EIC+). MATERIAL AND METHODS: In a prospective study, 233 consecutive women with a suspicious lesion underwent preoperative MR mammography and 209 invasive ductal carcinomas were detected. We studied the prediction of intraductal spread on mammography (MX), ultrasound (US) and MR. We compared the size of the total lesion on MX, US and MR and correlated it with histopathology. Enhancement patterns on MR were described. RESULTS: Of 209 invasive ductal carcinomas, 50 were EIC+ (24%). MX predicted intraductal spread in EIC+ carcinomas in 48.5%, US in 34.2% and MR in 68%. Compared to MX and US, MR was best in assessment of total tumor size. On MR, ductal spread in EIC+ tumors presented as ductal or linear enhancement, long spicules, a regional enhancing area or nodules adjacent to a mass. CONCLUSION: MR had the highest sensitivity to predict intraductal spread and was superior in assessing total tumor size.
PURPOSE: To determine the role of magnetic resonance (MR) mammography in detection and assessment of extent of tumors with extensive intraductal component (EIC+). MATERIAL AND METHODS: In a prospective study, 233 consecutive women with a suspicious lesion underwent preoperative MR mammography and 209 invasive ductal carcinomas were detected. We studied the prediction of intraductal spread on mammography (MX), ultrasound (US) and MR. We compared the size of the total lesion on MX, US and MR and correlated it with histopathology. Enhancement patterns on MR were described. RESULTS: Of 209 invasive ductal carcinomas, 50 were EIC+ (24%). MX predicted intraductal spread in EIC+ carcinomas in 48.5%, US in 34.2% and MR in 68%. Compared to MX and US, MR was best in assessment of total tumor size. On MR, ductal spread in EIC+ tumors presented as ductal or linear enhancement, long spicules, a regional enhancing area or nodules adjacent to a mass. CONCLUSION: MR had the highest sensitivity to predict intraductal spread and was superior in assessing total tumor size.
Authors: Eline E Deurloo; Jincey D Sriram; Hendrik J Teertstra; Claudette E Loo; Jelle Wesseling; Emiel J Th Rutgers; Kenneth G A Gilhuijs Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2012-02-26 Impact factor: 5.315
Authors: T A Heusner; S Hahn; C Jonkmanns; S Kuemmel; F Otterbach; M E Hamami; A R Stahl; A Bockisch; M Forsting; G Antoch Journal: Br J Radiol Date: 2010-10-19 Impact factor: 3.039
Authors: Julia Krammer; Elissa R Price; Maxine S Jochelson; Elizabeth Watson; Melissa P Murray; Stefan O Schoenberg; Elizabeth A Morris Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2017-05-31 Impact factor: 5.315
Authors: Rick G Pleijhuis; Maurits Graafland; Jakob de Vries; Joost Bart; Johannes S de Jong; Gooitzen M van Dam Journal: Ann Surg Oncol Date: 2009-07-17 Impact factor: 5.344
Authors: J Thomas; A Evans; J Macartney; S E Pinder; A Hanby; I Ellis; O Kearins; T Roberts; K Clements; G Lawrence; H Bishop Journal: Br J Cancer Date: 2010-01-05 Impact factor: 7.640